MUNICIPAL DECLARATIONS. (Hansard, 30 November 1837)

§ Mr. Grote
gave notice, that he would at the next stage of the Bill move an instruction to the Committee to extend the benefit of the measure to persons of the Jewish persuasion.

§ Mr. Shaw
observed, that the Bill had been allowed to be brought in without opposition on the distinct understanding that its provisions should not be extended to Jews.

§ Mr. Baines
felt persuaded that any attempt to introduce the Jews into the Bill would be fatal to its success. For his part, though friendly to the claims of the Jews, he was satisfied, in the present instance, to take what he could get. Every one admitted that the declarations now imposed upon Quakers were incompatible with the dictates of their religion, and prevented their becoming members of municipal bodies, and thus deprived those bodies of many valuable officers. For this reason he was anxious to see them speedily admitted to corporate privileges. If any hon. Gentleman wished to introduce a Bill on the same principle for the relief of the Jews he would support it; but he hoped that they would not, by endeavouring to tack the Jews on the present Bill—deprive Christians of the expected relief. He thought he was not fairly used in this matter. He had, last Session, introduced a Bill, in which the Jews were included. The consequence was that it was violently opposed and delayed until the Session was so far advanced that when it went up to the other House it was rejected—first, because of the lateness of its introduction, and secondly, as introducing a species of legislation not hitherto recognised. He had now brought in the Bill for the relief of Quakers and Moravians solely, and he wished to limit it to that object.

§ Mr. Warburton
said, that if the Jews were not comprehended in the Bill he should certainly oppose it. This was a Bill to enable persons to undertake municipal offices from which they were now excluded by certain oaths. Now, what was a sheriff' but a municipal officer? And were not Jews now eligible—and if they refused to serve, subject to a fine? When they were introducing a Bill opening municipal offices to all her Majesty's subjects should they exclude from its benefits a large class who were now liable to be compelled to serve in such offices? He thought that the introduction of a clause in favour of the Jews would not endanger the Bill, and he hoped that on going into committee the hon. Member for the City of London would move it.

§ Mr. G. F. Young
thought it was contrary to sound principles of legislation to make any exception in the bill. The present High Sheriff of London was a Jew, and no man could fill the office more efficiently, or with more credit to himself.

§ Sir R. Inglis
said, that the speech they had just heard afforded sufficient warning of the danger of conceding fresh privileges to persons opposed to the Church. When, on a former occasion, he had taken the notice of the bill into his hand, and heard the speech by which it was explained, he did not expect it would be so comprehensive as was proposed by the hon. Members for Bridport and Teignmouth. The hon. Member for Leeds had stated, that he did not intend to include any sects in the bill except Quakers and Moravians, and on that stipulation he did not oppose the bill. Now they were told by influential Members, representing large constituencies, and on both sides of the House, that persons of all creeds must be included in the privileges. The hon. Member for Bridport was always consistent; his constant purpose was to annihilate the Church, and to do away with all Christianity. If the bill was to include the Jews he would certainly oppose it, and in his opinion it was sure to fall to the ground.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that the hon. Baronet was quite correct in what he stated as far as regarded the hon. Member for Leeds, but the House was not to be influenced by that. It did appear to him that it was a reflection on the House of Commons that its time should be lost in conceding political privileges by driblets. The hon. Baronet was right in thinking he (Mr. 425 Hume) wished to include all classes in the bill. The hon. Baronet trembled for the Church, but he believed that intolerance was what placed the Church in the greatest danger. The more liberal the policy the safer the Church. It was a strange mode of reasoning to say that such a bill favoured those who had no religion. Why, those who had no religion would take any test demanded of them. The hon. Baronet was stanch to his own conscientious scruples in favour of the Church, yet he would deny others their civil rights, because they would not yield theirs. He would rather that the bill should be lost than passed in a defective form. They had now Jewish High Sheriffs receiving her Majesty, and giving the highest satisfaction to their fellow-citizens. And was it not now lamentable to see the House of Commons striving to deprive such men of their rights as citizens, particularly as a fine might be imposed on them for not serving in the offices from which the oaths excluded them? The hon. Baronet was always consistent, and he was the only man on that side of the House for whom he could say so much—in his intolerance. But he wished him even now, in the eleventh hour, to relent. How could he lay his head on his pillow, and ask himself if he had done unto others as he wished they should do unto him, if he thus disregarded the conscientious scruples of others.